Login

russian armor

Unofficial Revamp mod (EFA & WFA & Brits)

PAGES (30)down
15 Jul 2017, 10:55 AM
#401
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Jul 2017, 10:28 AMVipper


"the layer of rules" you are referring to is already in the mod:


Conscripts:
Slot items
- Receive accuracy penalty of -43%
- This affects all slot items, including PPSH and PTRS

Ostruppen:
- Receive a permanent -50% penalty on all picked up items
- Accuracy bonus only applies to default rifles


Yeah, and now you still have to rinse and repeat that for every unit and every weapon combination. It'll result in balance hell and impossibly for gamers to find out what weapon drops is best on their, let's suppose, unit z with weapon drop k,l or m against unit k.

That something is already in the game does not mean that it's good to expand on it. Or are you unhappy that I said 'add' layer instead of 'expanding' layer?
15 Jul 2017, 10:58 AM
#402
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



The Bren Gun should be left alone, honestly. It's great as it is. I can equip one at maximum and have an extra slot for picking up spare weapons. Plus equipping only one was something I did often even before this mod so I like the improved Bren as a result.

The weapon was designed to have a slow rate of fire in order to be more accurate so it's a great weapon for Infantry Sections in the Trenches. Lowering their accuracy at long range would destroy it's ability to be a defensive weapon. Infantry Sections simply are not suited for moving in closer to the enemy, due to their moving accuracy and shouldn't be forced to operate in that manner just to make their "Upgrade" useful. I also don't want to see them get fired on the move since that is a unique trait for the Commandos only. Need a more mobile LMG platform? Get an upgraded Universal Carrier and you have it. Please, no BAR-like Bren Guns!

The current Tommies play is rather boring. You can just leave them in cover/garrison on a sector and they can beat 1vs1 most enemy infantries that try to attack them, forcing to use more than 1 infantry to dislodge in which case they simply retreat.

Imo by changing the bren one could makes Tommies play allot more interesting. The balance could look abit like this:
Grenadiers vs Tommies (4)
Tommies (equal cover) advantage long range slight, disadvantage close range
Tommies (no cover) disadvantage

LMG Grenadiers vs Tommies (5)
Tommies (equal cover) slight advantage long range
Tommies (no cover) disadvantage

g43 Grenadier vs Tommies (5) bren
Tommies (equal cover) slight disadvantage long range, slight advantage mid range

g43 Grenadier vs Tommies (5) 2 bren
Tommies (equal cover) disadvantage long range, advantage mid range

The idea is the exact opposite of what you describe. Tommies are forced to move to make the bren upgrade useful, it is the bren upgrade that gives the player the option to use Tommies as more as a static unit if he chooses to.

In addition A moving a blod is limited by the fact that their DPS is lowered and they also have to move to cover to reach full potential DPS.


As for the Vickers K, I tried it with the changes and I wasn't impressed. The Vickers K was made as Britain's answer to the LMG42. You wouldn't know that by looking at it in game right now. If it really had to be redesigned, I would make it more like the MG42. It's fast firing rate (Comparable to MG42 in real life) would mean great short range, decent mid range and terrible long range DPS.

The Vickers K was actually developed for airplanes and for land was mostly used on the jeeps of desert rats. In real life it did not fire faster than MG42. As most mgs they are not very good at close range due to size and weight.


We should think of it as a LMG made for the Offense. Non-Doctrine Heavy Sappers get this LMG but they also have Sten Guns that are only good at short range so maybe it was intended for offense? Make the Vickers K suited for close range combat and that will be it's distinct purpose. Could merely just need a drop in long range accuracy and a longer burst at short range.

Heavy sapper can hardy be used offensively due to speed penalties. In game lmg have a distinctive weapon dps curve and totally reversing it in case of Vickers-K make little sense.
15 Jul 2017, 11:01 AM
#403
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

The balance that MrSmith is attempting to achieve in the mod is way better than what you propose. The early game for ukf is really fluent and most fun in the mod. We haven't had the chance to try the new mortars. There's no need at all for a complete remake of early game.

Do you want to play the mod sometime? Your experience seem to heavily rely on the live version..
15 Jul 2017, 11:08 AM
#404
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Yeah, and now you still have to rinse and repeat that for every unit and every weapon combination. It'll result in balance hell and impossibly for gamers to recall what weapon drops is best on their, let's suppose, pathfinder units.

That something is already in the game does not mean that it's good to expand on it. Or are you unhappy that I said 'add' layer instead of 'expanding' layer?

Its all simpler that you describe and is already in live game since elite troops pick a different version of lmgs in most cases.

It can be as simple as this: all dropped weapons picked by lower quality troops have -20-30% DPS, all weapon picked by elite infantry have +20-30% DPS.

Without these changes the ability of UKF HT to drop weapons will create issues in team-games as mentioned by other (the dual lmg Penal that can beat LMG obers)
15 Jul 2017, 11:12 AM
#405
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

[...] At this point, I give up; give us your changes (if any) for the forementioned units as a starting point, and we can talk.


If it is that simple, why don't you go through every unit and every weapon, put every unit/weapon in their respective classes and weapon combinations and describe the numbers for us as MrSmith kindly requested a while back?

[...] Lower quality troops have -20-30% DPS, all weapon picked by elite infantry have +20-30% DPS.


The idea isn't that great, as it'll just force players to get the biggest, most expensive, best bonus, and most elite units to win. Giving even more bonus to elite will just result in messy and boring DoW3-gameplay all over again.

If dropped weapons using one commander was really a problem, there'd be more threads about it.
15 Jul 2017, 11:45 AM
#406
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



If it is that simple, why don't you go through every unit and every weapon, put every unit/weapon in their respective classes and weapon combinations and describe the numbers for us as MrSmith kindly requested a while back?



The idea isn't that great though, as it'll just force players to get the biggest, most expensive, best bonus, and most elite units to win. Giving even more bonus to elite will just result in messy and boring DoW3-gameplay all over again.

If dropped weapons using one commander was really a problem, there'd be more threads about it.

As I have explained (and regardless of how you feel about the idea) it has been implement in the game from its start and it has been expanded in this mod and it certainly has not lead to "DOW3-gameplay". In other words both Relic and Moders find this a good idea.

The main reason for the implementation is to stop poor quality troops like osstruppen perform better than elite troops once they pick dropable weapons, while picking certain weapon with elite troops being more like a downgrade than an upgrade.

Since this is a thread about giving feeadback to moders (and not personal debates) I will try explain this more once more and then stop responding to your personal comments.

I am actually giving the modders what the asked for feedback. Parts of the feedback I have provided have made it to both this MOD and in the Live game so I don't really feel any need for your advice on how to help the game become better (especially since I have not seen any suggestion coming from you). On the the other hand maybe you should follow your own advice and try to provide useful feedback for the moders instead of fixating on what at do. I probably have nothing more to say to you and little interest in what you have to say to me, so have a nice day.

(P.S. if for any bizarre reason you find this post offensive feel free to report it, it would come as a surprise since once you got offended because I wished "marry Christmas")
15 Jul 2017, 11:55 AM
#407
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Jul 2017, 11:45 AMVipper

Parts of the feedback I have provided have made it to both this MOD and in the Live game so I don't really feel any need for your advice on how to help the game become better (especially since I have not seen any suggestion coming from you). On the the other hand maybe you should follow your own advice and try to provide useful feedback for the moders instead of fixating on what at do. I probably have nothing more to say to you and little interest in what you have to say to me, so have a nice day.

(P.S. if for any bizarre reason you find this post offensive feel free to report it, it would come as a surprise since once you got offended because I wished "marry Christmas")


I'm not even sure why you provoke me with a "go on, report me!" request, but I have done it for you as you forced me to do so. There's no need to incite others to call in moderation because we disagree.

But if you must tell us that you consider your feedback and yourself better than any other person in this thread and community, go for it. Regardless your attitude, I don't like your idea of balancing the elites, and there's nothing wrong to say that.

15 Jul 2017, 16:35 PM
#408
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808

all this unnecessary shit to FRP is not necessary. how you suppose to defend the battle group (medic) HQ without being able to retreat to it. its guna force everyone to put it into the base.
15 Jul 2017, 17:00 PM
#409
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Jul 2017, 16:35 PMAlphrum
all this unnecessary shit to FRP is not necessary. how you suppose to defend the battle group (medic) HQ without being able to retreat to it. its guna force everyone to put it into the base.


Soft retreat after you take losses when fighting nearby, don't yolo into machine guns to throw lava grenades at them, it is static but still durable and you can reinforce besides it.
This change will only hurt OKW in larger teamgame modes when they can camp an area and constantly harrash without requiring any tactic besides spreading out their vet5 infantry.
15 Jul 2017, 20:10 PM
#410
avatar of Chocoboknight88

Posts: 393

Anybody else notice the strange shape of the 17 Pounder?
15 Jul 2017, 20:13 PM
#411
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

...No?
Or do you mean that it is now fairly hard to hit it from afar?
15 Jul 2017, 20:50 PM
#412
avatar of Chocoboknight88

Posts: 393

The building preview to say the least. It's a rectangle box rather than a perfect square.
15 Jul 2017, 23:24 PM
#413
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808



Soft retreat after you take losses when fighting nearby,.


easier said then done, you know i cant move the medic truck around the god damn map right




This change will only hurt OKW in larger teamgame modes


well should have known, no wonder you'd support this as it doesn't effect your glorious USF in anyway and hits the faction you despise
15 Jul 2017, 23:36 PM
#414
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 422 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Jul 2017, 23:24 PMAlphrum


easier said then done, you know i cant move the medic truck around the god damn map right

well should have known, no wonder you'd support this as it doesn't effect your glorious USF in anyway and hits the faction you despise


Sounds like an l2p issue. The change was made to discourage blobbing by the WFA armies and because immobile FRPs were simply too powerful compared to the mobile halftracks that EFA armies have that were supposed to be it's counterpart.

It affects USF just as much as it affects OKW. Major FRPs have the same penalty. Even with the delaying changes OKW can still potentially get it's FRP up before USF techs to major.
16 Jul 2017, 09:23 AM
#415
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

"Ambush
The primary issue with Ambush is that the passive sprint bonus prevents Commandos from dealing damage. This becomes problematic when facing automatic-fire enemy units (e.g., most units from the OKW faction)

- Sprint bonus from ambush (+50% speed for 5 seconds) changed to +35% speed for 2.5 seconds
- Commandos can now fire their weapons while moving when the Ambush bonus is active
- Sprint bonus now requires Vet2"

Fire on the run is terrible idea since it will allow to chase down and finish any surviving entities that retreat (allowing one of the units that already can wipe out enemy squads reliably become even better at it).

It also makes little sense. Ambush is about lying in wait and attacking the enemy from concealed positions when it comes to one's position. Not moving in stealth and attacking the enemy in his position.

Being able to move in stealth and trow some of the most powerful grenades is simply cheesy.

The Ostheer "ambush camouflage" is far better ambush design since it requires the ambushing units to be static.

Imo commandos should start with static cammo and maybe gain moving camo with veterancy. Sprint should simply be removed and if needed commandos could get some more mid DPS by the ambush bonus or by replacing some stens with different weapons or by changing sten's DPS curve by moving some DPS from close DPS to mid.

Brit Sniper

- Non-turreted vehicles will suffer from -75% speed penalty and weapons disabled for 3 seconds (down from complete stun for 5 seconds)

Glad to see that you incorporate one of my suggestions.
16 Jul 2017, 16:03 PM
#416
avatar of Chocoboknight88

Posts: 393

Figured out another way to combat Zeroing Artillery vs Emplacements. If your enemy is already driven off and your emplacements themselves aren't under threat, immediately tell them to hold fire. This is especially true for Mortar Pits and 17 Pounders. Their long range lets them keep hitting targets and get them revealed through the fog of war. Tell them to hold fire and the bombardment may stop. :)

Loving the 17 Pounder by the way. Far more useful now. I can see why you never added armour to the Mortar Pit. Vehicles are having a hard time hitting it. Haha.
16 Jul 2017, 18:32 PM
#417
avatar of frostbite

Posts: 593

yea the emplacements are harder to hit, but I didn't get a chance to test indirect fire or cal ins vs them how much dmg do those do? and wat about flame weapons
17 Jul 2017, 09:28 AM
#418
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

There was a small ninja-update last night that hopefully fixes the following issues:
- Soviet call-ins not losing the price penalty after teching
- Reload icon missing from Reload MG
- Commando smoke grenades/Sapper destroy cover being able to be cast on entities (and bugging as a result)
- Universal Carrier/Churchill preferring paths that force them to go in reverse

Also, some new things:

Pathing improvements
- Adjusted all vehicles/team-weapons in the game to prefer using forward movement to react to “right-click” commands.
- Units will use a reverse motion, only if significant gains are to be had (e.g., if a path that uses reverse is 2 seconds faster than any other path that doesn't use reverse)
- This doesn’t affect explicit reverse commands

Churchill
Increased the radius of the infantry support smoke buff to match the visuals; suppression modifier changed from -80% to -95% for units hiding in the smoke

17 pounder
- Armour reduced from 3 to 1.4 (due to being TOO resilient to small-arms fire)


So.. Let us know how the new pathing feels and how to make it better.
17 Jul 2017, 11:53 AM
#419
avatar of sherlock
Patrion 14

Posts: 550 | Subs: 1



Recon Paratroopers don't get Tactical Assault, they lay mines in exchange.


You should play them. Recon paras with thompsons have tactical assault. They don't get demos in exchange for laying mines ;)



However, it seems that tactical assault being missing was either an issue on my side or a bug since with 2.1 it's back :)
17 Jul 2017, 15:45 PM
#420
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1



You should play them. Recon paras with thompsons have tactical assault. They don't get demos in exchange for laying mines ;)



However, it seems that tactical assault being missing was either an issue on my side or a bug since with 2.1 it's back :)


Jolly Good.
Shame they still have 3 Thompsons instead of 4, or was it 2 Thompsons and one BAR?
PAGES (30)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

889 users are online: 1 member and 888 guests
SneakEye
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49090
Welcome our newest member, BrubeckDeclarkBurche
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM